Journal 2
(citizenship in theory)
When learning about the intricacy of citizenship, there are many factors to consider. On one hand, there are various theoretical models that people can study. Then there are people. Observing people and the way that they behave lends to the understanding of citizenship because the way that people behave on a day-to-day basis is an indication of what citizenship means to them. The more I observe others and see what they value as citizens, it becomes easier for me to qualify what I believe is important in terms of citizenship as well.
The other day while sitting in the Jewish ghetto, sipping on cappuccinos as a class, we had a discussion about a theoretical model proposed by Hannah Arendt. During this discussion we covered Arendt’s idea that there are two basic spheres that humans function within, the private one and the public one. The private sphere is broken down into labor and work which are both related to the basic needs of life. The public sphere is the one in which we gain meaningful human interaction that is necessary in order to benefit the community at large, and it is defined by action. Arendt said that both spheres were necessary for people to function as a community, because people must first take care of the necessities of life in order to feel free enough to deal with important matters within the community. Additionally, she claimed that for life to really be meaningful that it couldn’t solely be spent in the private sphere. One thing Arendt was adamant about was that in order for something to be considered public activity it had to affect people on a large scale.
I personally found this discussion really interesting because the ideas proposed by Arendt seemed to be very original. However, though I found the discussion very interesting, there was one thing that was both hindering me and aiding me throughout the discussion. That is my tendency to be easily distracted. About halfway through the discussion the campo we were sitting in began to fill with small children and their parents all interacting with one another. This hindered me because without even realizing it I would periodically start to observe all the people interacting while I should have been focusing on the topic at hand. However, it aided me because I started to think about how all these people in front of me could relate to Arendt’s theoretical model.
For instance, I started to think about exactly why that campo was starting to fill up at that time. It occurred to me that it was about the time of day that kids were starting to get out of school and some adults were coming home from work. Each of them had just returned from school or work which was the time they were required to spend in the private sphere taking care of necessities. Children spent time preparing for their futures while parents spent time making sure that their families have the means to survive in the present. So now that they felt free from that sphere, they were able to form togetherness in this campo. They were able to come together as citizens of their community. I realized that the time that they spent there in the campo interacting with one another was their form of entering the public sphere.
Arendt would argue that they remained in the private sphere because they weren’t doing anything for a large scale community. However, in their minds, the time that they spend together building up the community they are in is a form of a public sphere. When people invest time into building up a small community, that community can affect the larger scale community that it is a part of and so on and so forth. If the smaller community building blocks of a larger community are strong then they will build a strong community at large. For this reason I would say that the public sphere can be viewed on a smaller scale than Arendt claims. In order to have a strong global community, there must first be a strong foundation and that foundation is found within the small communities.
So even though I should have been focusing more intently on the discussion at hand, the distraction in front of me helped me to understand how I personally value citizenship. I don’t completely disagree with Arendt. I believe that much of what she asserts is actually very relatable, specifically her notions about the private sphere. However, where I (and many others) diverge from her thinking is when it comes to the public sphere. When it comes to citizenship, I believe that to be an active citizen you don’t necessarily have to be affecting an entire country all at once. I believe that if citizens, such as myself, make sure to build a strong foundation then they will in turn create a society that is beneficial to all who live in it.
The other day while sitting in the Jewish ghetto, sipping on cappuccinos as a class, we had a discussion about a theoretical model proposed by Hannah Arendt. During this discussion we covered Arendt’s idea that there are two basic spheres that humans function within, the private one and the public one. The private sphere is broken down into labor and work which are both related to the basic needs of life. The public sphere is the one in which we gain meaningful human interaction that is necessary in order to benefit the community at large, and it is defined by action. Arendt said that both spheres were necessary for people to function as a community, because people must first take care of the necessities of life in order to feel free enough to deal with important matters within the community. Additionally, she claimed that for life to really be meaningful that it couldn’t solely be spent in the private sphere. One thing Arendt was adamant about was that in order for something to be considered public activity it had to affect people on a large scale.
I personally found this discussion really interesting because the ideas proposed by Arendt seemed to be very original. However, though I found the discussion very interesting, there was one thing that was both hindering me and aiding me throughout the discussion. That is my tendency to be easily distracted. About halfway through the discussion the campo we were sitting in began to fill with small children and their parents all interacting with one another. This hindered me because without even realizing it I would periodically start to observe all the people interacting while I should have been focusing on the topic at hand. However, it aided me because I started to think about how all these people in front of me could relate to Arendt’s theoretical model.
For instance, I started to think about exactly why that campo was starting to fill up at that time. It occurred to me that it was about the time of day that kids were starting to get out of school and some adults were coming home from work. Each of them had just returned from school or work which was the time they were required to spend in the private sphere taking care of necessities. Children spent time preparing for their futures while parents spent time making sure that their families have the means to survive in the present. So now that they felt free from that sphere, they were able to form togetherness in this campo. They were able to come together as citizens of their community. I realized that the time that they spent there in the campo interacting with one another was their form of entering the public sphere.
Arendt would argue that they remained in the private sphere because they weren’t doing anything for a large scale community. However, in their minds, the time that they spend together building up the community they are in is a form of a public sphere. When people invest time into building up a small community, that community can affect the larger scale community that it is a part of and so on and so forth. If the smaller community building blocks of a larger community are strong then they will build a strong community at large. For this reason I would say that the public sphere can be viewed on a smaller scale than Arendt claims. In order to have a strong global community, there must first be a strong foundation and that foundation is found within the small communities.
So even though I should have been focusing more intently on the discussion at hand, the distraction in front of me helped me to understand how I personally value citizenship. I don’t completely disagree with Arendt. I believe that much of what she asserts is actually very relatable, specifically her notions about the private sphere. However, where I (and many others) diverge from her thinking is when it comes to the public sphere. When it comes to citizenship, I believe that to be an active citizen you don’t necessarily have to be affecting an entire country all at once. I believe that if citizens, such as myself, make sure to build a strong foundation then they will in turn create a society that is beneficial to all who live in it.